Democrats Divided Over Nasty Attack Ad

When has a religion-based attack ad gone too far? Democrats are deeply divided
over an ad run by Democratic candidate Jack Conway accusing opponent
Rand Paul of mocking Christianity and leading a college prank that involved
worshiping an "Aqua Buddha." There doesn't appear to be much
middle ground: there are those who think the ad is inexcusable and something
Democrats should unequivocally denounce, and those who think it's just
fine.

So what's the
source of these wildly divergent views? Those who are appalled by the ad seem to have two main objections: first, that the
video reaches way back into college-era shenanigans, and, second, that
it appears to suggest atheism is or should be a problem in someone
running for public office. Those defending it also have two broad
points: first, that the allegations in the ad are true, and, second,
that politics is a hardball game--in other words, Republicans
wouldn't have hesitated to run something comparable.This Is Outrageous

I'm Sure It's True, I Just Don't Think It's Right "The trouble with Conway's ad,"writes The New Republic's Jonathan Chait, "is that it comes perilously
close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification
for public office. That's a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic
campaign." He adds that he doesn't actually "doubt the implication of
the ad, namely that Rand Paul harbors a private contempt for
Christianity."

'A Sickening Premise for Any Campaign' Doug Mataconis
at Outside the Beltway one-ups Chait's assessment, pointing out that,
regardless of which party is doing the attacking, a campaign based on
notion that atheists aren't fit for public office turns the stomach.

Slimy
"It takes thinly sourced college pranks and sells them as a calculated
and conspiratorial assault on Christianity," objects The Washington
Post's Ezra Klein.
"This is why smart, decent people do not want to run for office." Also,
he adds, there is no evidence that political "hardball" of this sort
actually works. On Twitter, he adds that the ad is "dishonorable and ugly."

'Very
Dangerous Ad' Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill dislikes it "because
it reaches back to college ... I think the ad came close to the line,"
Politico's Meredith Shiner quotes her as saying.

'I'm Not Saying It Won't ... Be Effective,' writes Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. "But it registered for me as somewhere between a hokey Tea Party ad and an
SNL spoof." (His first reaction: "This ad ... man, this ad. Whew.")

First, no candidate over the age of, say, 30 should be held politically
accountable for anything he or she did in college--short of gross
academic misconduct or committing a felony. Second, and more
importantly, a politician's religious faith should simply be
off-limits. If it's disgusting when conservatives question Barack
Obama's Christianity, then it's disgusting when Jack Conway questions
Rand Paul’s.

Actually, It's Not

But This Is True! Harvard professor Theda Skocpol
protests the "prissy condemnations coming from liberal commentators."
The ad, she says, "is a matter of letting regular voters who themselves
care deeply about Christian belief know that Paul is basically playing
them." It's not a "political sin," she argues, "to point out to
ordinary Kentucky voters the kind of stuff about Paul's extremist
libertarian views that everyone in the punditry already knows." And
another thing:

Dems often lack conviction or the will to be
eloquently honest (for example, on taxes). But an equal problem is that
when someone does play hardball, the rest of the prissy liberal
Mugwumps tut-tut them about it.

Sure, It's 'Ugly,' But Have
You Seen the Other Ads? "This ad has the virtue--not that common in
politics--of being accurate," agrees Matt Yglesias
at Think Progress. In any event, he adds, "what I find most striking
about the Conway-related outrage is the lack of outrage over the
torrent of xenophobic China-bashing ads we've seen from candidates of
both parties throughout this campaign season."

A Response to the Ad's Defenders

We Need Lines "Is Rand Paul misleading the electorate about his religion? Sure," writes Jonathan Chait, in a separate post. "But he's not running on a religious
platform. It's Conway who's making religion an issue. I think an
atheist, which is what I'm petty sure Paul is, ought to be able to run
for office without having his belief system publicly interrogated." In
addition, he says, though there is some virtue to the point that
successful politicians need to play hardball, " even if Conway is right to kick Rand Paul in the groin, I'm also right for pointing out that's what he's doing." In conclusion:

Rand Paul may be a dangerous man and unusually dishonest about his beliefs. But there still need to be some lines.